Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Roman Catholic Bishops of Hong Kong/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Roman Catholic Bishops of Hong Kong[edit]

List of Roman Catholic Bishops of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel its structure and formatting mirrors the other lists I have successfully nominated to FL and it now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments
  • First two sentences are extremely short and could easily be combined
  • Combined. Would I need a comma between "Kong" and "who" (in the middle of the sentence)? —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think a comma would be needed
  • "Became the first vicar apostolic" - should the last two words be capitalised (to match the heading)?
  • Corrected. And I've also capitalised Valtorta's entry as "first Bishop of Hong Kong" for consistency. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did Bianchi resign in 1976 if he only served until 1968?
  • My bad – I messed that one up by listing the date he retired from his titular see. Just a slight wrinkle – the diocesan source (ref 27) says he retired on 19 December 1968 (turns out this was the day his resignation was accepted). However, the Catholic-Hierarchy.org bio (not used here since it's debatable whether it's a reliable source) says he resigned on 30 November 1968 (and this bio is used as the source for a Macau newspaper article that would be considered reliable). I am unsure of whether this fell under nunc pro tunc as is usually the case when a bishop resigns. Which date should I use? —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure - I don't know enough about how these things work. Maybe say "late 1968" if it's unclear.....?
  • I'll use the earlier date, since I'm of the understanding that his resignation was backdated to that day. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Bianchi's death date mentioned? Elsewhere you only seem to list death dates for those who died in office.
  • I was planning on listing every bishop's death date (not just those who died in office). It's just that the two retired bishops (Zen and Tong) are still alive. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense - do you plan to add the other missing death dates in that case?
  • Where are the other missing death dates? The first rows of Raimondi and Valtorta in the tables omit this info (along with the info pertaining to their later roles of Vicar Apostolic and Bishop, respectively) because that is already covered in the later rows. I don't want to repeat the same info twice. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure the exact same picture of Tong Hon needs to be in the article twice
  • Fixed – removed the infobox image (especially since a new bishop is going to be announced anytime now). —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure. I am British so I am used to seeing information on people having OBEs and MBEs, and in those cases a comma is not used, but I don't know if the styling for these Catholic post-nominals is different.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:POSTNOM says either format is fine. I'll use commas here since there's only one post-nominal for each individual. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from - Dank (push to talk) 19:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dank:
  • Hi Bloom. Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing. All this excludes Chris's comments above. I may or may not get 5 points in the Wikicup for this review.
  • In the WP:FLC for List of felids, one FLC delegate recommended, and the other implemented, a suggestion to add alt text to the daggers: {{dagger|alt=Extinct}}. I'm not sure what that means, but perhaps you should add alt text in the same way to your double-daggers.
  • "Hong Kong": duplicate link in the next-to-last entry in the last table
  • "Antonio Feliciani": His Wikipedia article calls him Anthony. All other names in the tables check out.
  • Someone must have anglicized his name here, because that's how it appears on the Diocesan website (under general ref), the diocese's archive (ref 14), and this source from the Holy Spirit Study Centre (unofficially affiliated to the Holy See). —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from 1949–51", etc.: from 1949 to 1951. It's a WP:MOS thing.
  • I think MOS:DATERANGE permits two-digit ending years for "infoboxes and tables where space is limited (using a single format consistently in any given table column)". —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's at MOS:RANGE: "Do not mix en dashes with between or from. ... from 1961 to 1962, not from 1961–62". - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad – I overlooked that. Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FLC criteria:
    • You make excellent use of images, but this isn't an image review, per se.
    • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
    • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
    • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources (but this isn't a source review). All retrieval dates are present.
    • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it is not a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
    • 4. It is navigable.
    • 5. It meets style requirements.
    • 6. It is stable.
  • Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 00:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for your review! —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure thing. Added a reply above. Also, I've heard we're supposed to announce it if we're claiming points in the Wikicup ... this will go towards your Wikicup total, right? - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I will be counting this towards my WikiCup total (if this gets promoted before I get eliminated). But a WikiCup competitor only has to mention their intention to claim points when they are reviewing a FA or FL candidate, not when they are nominating one. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

  • Xlibris Corporation releases self-published books, so the reliability of ref 7 is in some question. For this to be reliable enough, Barrett would probably have to be a published author on the topic, or an expert in the field.
  • The all caps in a bunch of the references should be removed.
  • Fixed for the names. I've retained the caps for post-nominal letters – hope that's alright. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than those issues, the reliability and formatting look okay, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm satisfied with the explanations above, and consider the source review passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be a stupid question, but since John Tong Hon became a bishop again, shouldn't he have another row after Yeung? ~ HAL333 02:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HAL333: Not a stupid question at all! It is quite a complicated and unusual situation indeed. Tong is not "Bishop of Hong Kong" again (as in he never re-acquired that title). He is merely a caretaker right now until a permanent successor to Yeung is appointed. The only reason why Tong and Francis Hsu have that caretaker title (i.e. apostolic administrator) listed in their notes is because they either were previously Bishop of HK (Tong's case) or eventually assumed that post (Hsu). If any hypothetical caretaker in the future doesn't either become Bishop of the Diocese or was previously Bishop there, then they will be merely mentioned in a footnote (just like Fr. Gabriel Lam is in footnote G). —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes sense. It's just an acting position.
  • Support Nice job. ~ HAL333 04:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Roman_Catholic_Bishops_of_Hong_Kong/archive1&oldid=957274896"